Legal Question in DUI Law in California

The perfect storm..DUI, property damage, unknown bac, hit and run, susp lic, no ins, no witnesses. I was tracked down by a neighbor, then the property owner, standing outside my damaged car. No statement given, blood test not back yet and also taken 2hrs after last drink.1st DUI offense. I think I can reasonably convince and prove that I dont go anywhere but home and work (16hr days for 4yrs), single income fam of 5, otherwise model citizen. Drove myself to work out of nec, went to a bar out of stupidity (not my scene). Lost control on wet road where many have crashed before me, slammed into something, dazed but recognized the road and pulled back onto it to head somewhere safe, like home.

Is my defense the unlikelihood of repeating and pleading -or- the burden of proof w no witness w rising bac.


Asked on 12/17/09, 3:33 pm

2 Answers from Attorneys

Joshua Hale Hale Law Group

You need a lawyer fast. DO not wait, do not pass go.

Read more
Answered on 12/22/09, 3:46 pm
Dave Jake Schwartz sonomacountyduilawyer.com

The answer to your question is that, of the choices you offer, "rising BAC" is the only actual defense (to the charge of driving with a BAC of .08 or higher), because it is a direct challenge to a charged violation.

"No witness" may be a weakness in the government's case, particularly if you go to trial and place at issue whether it was you or someone else who drove the vehicle, or if certain timing issues are raised. Depending on the issues raised in a case, the government's lack of witnesses may make it difficult to prove certain conduct or occurrences, although your admissions at the time of the events, and certain circumstantial evidence is often enough to make the government's case against you without actual eye witnesses.

Burden of proof (beyond a reasonable doubt) is the standard with which the government must prove each element of each charge on the face of the complaint against you (typically, that you were impaired and that you were above a .08 at the time of driving), which is not a defense so much as it is a very high level of comfort which a jury must reach before finding you guilty on each element. Whether or not a particular case has "defenses," is not the same as simply requiring the government to do its job and put on its case to try to prove the charges against you to the degree required, which is beyond any reasonable doubt.

"Unlikelihood of repeating" and "pleading" (presumably you mean pleading for leniency) are not defenses, nor are they new urgings never heard by judge or district attorney, nor are such generally convincing or successful. Rather, generally, to obtain a dismissal or reduction of charges, one must successfully show legal infirmities in the government's case. Sometimes, depending on the severity of facts alleged, substantial pre-trial efforts to demonstrate a commitment to sobriety, as well as reimbursment for any damages caused in a hit and run case, may help to soften the consequences, although these remedial efforts typically are not helpful with respect to DMV suspension consequences.

Successfully identifying and arguing the weaknesses of a case against you and attempting to dispose of driving suspension issues and consequences are what lawyers do. If you live in Sonoma County and wish to hire a lawyer, or browse additional information about DUI's, please feel free to visit my website at www.sonomacountyduilawyer.com.

Good luck.

Jake

Read more
Answered on 12/23/09, 2:47 am


Related Questions & Answers

More Drunk Driving & DUI Law questions and answers in California